Journalists Distort Science News - Essay Example

REPORTING PANICS LECTURER: Topic: The claim that journalists distort science news simply overlooks the various factors that shape the reporting of science. Do you agree? Introduction The work of journalists is very important in getting the world the news that is going on around it. It is common knowledge that a person cannot be at all places at a time but with the nature of their work, there seem to be journalist at every place at one point in time or the other. By putting the pieces of information they find from these different places together, the world receives the news it requires in a day. Today, there are several factors that have made the work of journalists even more advanced, making it possible for them to execute their roles very well. One of such factors that readily come to mind is the issue of technology, which has come to enhance both the efficiency and effectiveness of the work of journalists (Winslow, 2011). One important thing about journalism is that it is not all journalists who do the same kind of work. This is perhaps the world is highly diverse and so news that must be picked from different sectors of it must be diverse. As much as the work of every other type of journalist is very important and respectable, it may be valid to argue that science journalism or science reporting in general is particularly important. This could be because of the importance that science as a concept in today’s world carries (Slosson, 2010). Regardless of the importance of their work and the factors that have been said to make journalism, and for that matter science journalism more advanced, there continues to be some criticisms against journalists for distorting science news. In this paper, it will be argued and agreed with that this claim that journalists distort science news simply overlook the various factors that shape the reporting of science. By this, reference is being made to the fact that the writer will argue that there are several factors that hinder accurate science journalism that critiques of science reporting have not critically considered. Should some of these factors be given serious consideration, the best that can be done would be to resolve those factors so that the way will be paved for science journalists to be more accurate with their work rather than distorting science news. This is because there is sufficient evidence to the effect that journalists have gone every breadth to ensure that their work is highly esteemed and comes with the reputation it deserves (Slosson, 2014). Whiles the paper discusses the various factors that shape the reporting of science, the role that journalists themselves can play, as well as scientists can play in making science reporting better shall also be reviewed. Key factors that act as hindrance to accurate science journalism Lack of logistics In science reporting, logistics are very important in ensuring that journalists are able to get to news scenes in a timely manner, gather evidence in a professional manner, and analyse their evidence in a much scientific way (Scopes and Presley, 2007). Very unfortunately, there are several media houses working as journalism companies but lack such logistics that will make the work of their journalists easier and easy going. In situations like this where journalists do not have the needed logistics to function, they are always forced to resort to one of two options. The first option has to do with improvisation, which requires that they will use whatever is within their means to get what they want to do. At other times, journalists who lack logistics use arbitrary approaches to working. Most commonly, the journalists will work by guessing and making assumptions. Very unfortunately, none of these two ways of intervening in the case of lack of logistics is helpful in getting accurate science report. In either case, there is likely to be distortion of science news because the journalist hardly gets the right inputs of a science case, from which effective processing can be done. Meanwhile, whenever there is inaccurate processing of data, chances that there will be inaccurate and distorted output is higher (Science Service et al., 2003). Distortion in evidence Evidence is a very important aspect of science reporting. This is because with the use of evidence, it is possible to have an intact basis on which arguments can be made on the subject of reportage (National Research Council, 2011). This means that for there to be accurate and undistorted science reporting, all evidence in given news events must stay intact and original. Unfortunately though, this has not always been the case as science journalists have often arrived at news scenes with the very objects or materials they are to use as evidence being distorted. Writing on the issue of distortion of evidence, Mitchell (2012) noted that a greater section of the public have not received the needed education not to handle evidence at news scenes that they have not been mandated to handle. Until such a time that there will be an understanding with the public that they are not suppose to distort evidence, the task of the journalist in making unadulterated reportage on science news will be difficult. There is also another issue with evidence, where McCabe (2011) noted that most science journalists have had evidence totally concealed from them. In a situation like this, it becomes extremely difficult for the science journalist to have any basis on which they can perform further investigations and give reports that are not distorted. Lack of stakeholder support Another factor that hinders the accurate reportage of science news has been found to be lack of stakeholder support. By this, reference is being made to a total lack of cooperation from agencies, bodies and people who must be concerned with working hand in hand with journalists to ensure that they give accurate reporting. Knight (2006) the whole concept of journalism is not something that a single person can do all alone. This is what makes the profession a shared responsibility. At every point in time, people who have some form of science news must be ready to release them to journalists and go ahead to thoroughly co-operate with them. However, journalists have often reported of very hostile reception given to them by people who should be responsible for giving them information. Very often, the trust that such stakeholders must have in journalists to undertake professional handling of issues have been undermined, making these stakeholders doubt the competencies of science journalists of doing a good handling of science information and facts. In effect, until such a time that the stakeholders will take away that shield of restrain and open up to the journalists in a more cooperative manner, it will be difficult for journalists to give science news in accuracy. This is because the more there is concealment of information the more likely it is that journalists will make up stories in a way that fits for them. Society created order and disorder There is also a problem whereby society is seen to have created an order and disorder system, in which they expect journalists to function. What this means is that society always has a way of dictating to journalists about what is right and what is not right. Because of this, journalists are always forced to go about their roles not in a way they find acceptable according to their code of conduct. Rather, they are forced to function within the system that has been created by society. The problem that comes with this issue is that it makes it difficult for the journalists to have fair grounds from which they can operate as professionals (Dilling, 2009). For example, instead of working in a way that is professionally acceptable, they become strained by the pressures of the social order to function only in a way that pleases the order. What is worse is that because the society may be having its own way of perceiving what is right and what is wrong, they are hardly able to pass fair judgment on the outcomes of the works of journalists. Once this happens, it no longer becomes a matter of whether the journalist is distorting science news or is giving accurate science news. Rather, the issues are judged according to whether society is having what it desires or not. Policy restrictions One other issue that has militated against journalists over the years is the issue of policy restrictions. Chase and Schlink (2007) explained that there are two major ways in which policy restriction acts against the work of journalists in their attempt to giving accurate reportage. The first of this is a situation whereby rules and laws are made that retrain journalists from getting to function in ways that benefits their professional requirements. For example in some countries, journalists are forbidden from getting close to government facility with the aim of seeking information, especially science information. Governments make such rules with the thinking that allowing journalists entry will expose forms of news that they are trying to conceal. In situations like this, journalists become very restricted and limited in producing the best of quality work that can be holistic rather than distorted. There is also another situation where the rules that must be made to make it easy for journalists to function are not in place. A typical example of such situation is where there is no freedom to information act that makes it possible for journalists to access any information that they find important for their professional discourse. In the absence of such laws, journalists feel highly limited in the acquisition of information for their work and become tempted to distort available news (Bush, 2005). The role of journalists in improving science reporting Even though some amount of justifications have been given on other factors that hinder journalists in their work when it comes to science reporting, it would also be admitted that journalists and the journalism profession as a whole has a role to play in improving science reporting. Some of the things that can be done by journalists have been discussed below. Build up a basic knowledge It would be noted that science is a very large study area with so many subjects and branches. Each of these also has their own rules that govern them. It is therefore advised that journalists who want to go into science reporting; for the reasoning of being accurate with their work would build up basic knowledge in all of these areas (Blum and Knudson, 2007). Even though news comes up so suddenly, it is advised that once this happens, the journalist will go to the field with some level of understanding on what is happening, depending on the science area or field they are to report from. In related argument, Scorer (2002) advised that if journalists would learn to take up one field at a time, it would do them a lot of good in becoming experts and thus more accurate with their reporting. For example, instead of being a general science reporter, a journalist may specialise in medicine so that medicine news will be all that he would have to be bordered with. The advantage that has been found with this is that it makes learning confined and much easier to take place (Schar and Smith, 2014). But before journalists take this path, they must be ready to work within their own rules, especially when it comes to saying no to areas they know are not their specialty. Make contacts The need to make contacts is a very important responsibility that journalists must bear if they want to be more accurate with their science reporting. By making contact, reference is being made to the need for journalists to accept that they cannot know everything all the time. For this reason, they must open themselves up to learning from others and making consultations when necessary (Schar and Smith, 2013). As much as it may be difficult to find people who are ready to open up, it is also possible to find people who are ready to work with the journalist to have a good science reporting. Kopka and Daly (2009) noted that in most cases of science reporting, the kind of people that the journalist needs are very varying. Depending on the news at hand therefore, it is the responsibility of the journalist to identify the people who fit within a given context as stakeholders. In most cases however, finding field based expert in an area of reportage is the best option. For example a journalist reporting about an earthquake will find it prudent contacting a geologist whose work is directly related to earthquakes. At other times also, contacting is about the right superiors and manager to provide needed logistics to carry out roles. Once such is the situation, the journalist must not hesitate to make such contacts. Working for details Working for detail means searching till there is all that there needs to be found about a particular science story (Pan and Smith, 2009). Already, the need for journalists to build up basic knowledge has been stressed. But it is important to know when to use basic knowledge and when to work for details. Commonly, the basic knowledge is needed at the times before the journalist gets hold of the evidence concerning the science news. For example, once a gigantic fish is said to have been washed offshore, the journalist would immediately need to know about fishes and their lifestyle. However, once the journalist have gotten to the sight and had access to evidence such as video or picture footage, working for details must begin. This is because at such a point, the journalist needs the single particular thing he is dealing with. At the point where the journalist has access to every evidence that is needed, one of the best ways for the journalist to be appreciated as doing their work with no distortions is by accepting to go very deep with investigations. Normally, the problem that has hindered journalist from doing this is the issue of wanting to break news first. Because of the rush, the need for details and even due diligence becomes greatly affected (Russey, Ebel and Bliefert, 2006). Objectivity Even though society may have its own orders and disorders, it is important that the journalists understands that their own orders and disorders are what defines their professionalism (Pettre, 2012). For this reason, it is always important for journalists to work within professional boundaries, whiles keeping the core principle of objectivity. To be objective means to report science news as it is from a more open ended perspective rather than from a close ended and subjective perspective. To do this effectively, journalists must be ready to put aside any personal interests they may have in a subject that is bringing up particular news. For example, the fact that a journalist who is a vegetarian is reporting about flesh animals does not mean there should be any personal sentiments or positions held against people who eat flesh meat for which the reporter will be biased. This is because as soon as there is bias and subjectivity, there is distortion, which gives room for the journalist to be blamed for news that is distorted. An objective journalist would always learn to put personal interests aside even if these personal interests come together to form the direct opposite of what brings them comfort. Another example of this is a journalist who is not a gay but having to report about gays. Immediately, the journalist must differentiate professionalism from sensationalism. The role of scientists in science journalism Reach out Scientists are the people for whom science news and reports are made. For this reason, it is very important that scientists will always be around when there must be some science news or reporting. But before this can happen, the scientists must be ready to reach out to the journalists and offer every kind of assistance that is needed (Hoinka, 2010). Once scientists reach out, they must also know how to define their roles and limitations. In terms of roles, Gohm (2003) mentioned that the best role scientists can play in science reporting is by offering expert advice, guidance and consultation (Jackson and Steyn, 2004). It is important for the scientist to know that the journalist may not be an expert in specific science fields as the scientist may be. For this reason, the scientist out to be a teacher to the journalist. When it comes to limitations also, it is advised that the fact that the scientist may know better in a particular field should not be a reason for the scientist to take over the work of the science journalist. This is because journalism will always be different from theoretical and practice science (Hoinka, 2005). It is therefore important that whiles scientists are reaching out, they would require from the journalists the specific ways in which they would want the help of journalists. Once it is the journalist who is defining the assistance they require, chances that the scientist will be crossing lines is very minimal. Making the facts simple Leading on from the need to reach out is the need to make facts as simple as possible, especially when dealing with science journalists. This is because studies have showed that more journalists want facts to be kept simple because that is what makes them understand easily (Dorman, Beardsley, and Limeburner, 2005). What is more, once the facts are kept simple, the journalist feels an obligation that there is something more left that has to be dug into (Arakawa, 2009). It is important to note that once the journalist does not understand the facts that the scientist is putting up to him, chances that the journalist will cause distortions to make the facts understandable to them is higher. To this end, scientists are admonished to making science news more accurate by not looking into the facts with the same spectacles when it is for the purpose of journalism. There are a number of writers who have debated this point, stating that simplifying the facts is a form of distortion in itself (Dudo, Dunwoody & Scheufele, 2011). This can however not be agreed with because making facts simple is totally different from going behind what the real facts are. To make facts simple must not be mistaken for bending the facts to please the journalist or the people who will be taking up the news from the scientist. Rather, it should mean that bringing the same old fashioned and well researched news to a level that the journalist and all other people receiving it can cope with. Provision of feedback Last but not least, scientists can be very useful to the journalism profession if they would provide feedback on what journalists put up. Feedback as used in this context refers to the need for the scientist to share professional critique and opinion on whatever it is that the journalist puts up as part of their science reporting (Fischer, 2013). Normally, people do not see the mistakes and inaccuracies of what they put up until they are all done and having time to reflect on what they did. However, in journalism, and for that matter science reporting, such reflections would virtually be empty and unprofitable if there is not a basis or yardstick by which it will be done. Because of this, scientists must always be there for journalists and science reporters by telling them where they are getting things done right and where they are not getting things right. This also means that feedback must not always focus on one side, either the good or the bad. Rather, there must be a substance of both, where the journalist will have a means of knowing where they did well and where they need to improve. In such a situation where there is a basis for knowing both write and wrong, the journalist can easily make the right decisions on their profession, whether to stabilise their practice on their strength or improve their weaknesses. Conclusion From the discussion, it would be noted that having an accurate science reporting regime is a shares responsibility. This means that no single individual or outfit can claim to be responsible for giving the world accurate science reporting. Rather, it is important to put together the efforts of all stakeholders including scientists, journalists, government, and the general public (Zara, 2013). As much as it is admitted that journalism is the profession that journalists have chosen and so they must be good at it, it would also be reiterated that science is very peculiar, given its ever evolving state and nature. Until now, the task of having science reporting that is not distorted from the facts has been left to be the sole responsibility of the journalist and as such various factors that make science reporting perfect have been overlooked. But even as all things have not been made perfect yet, it is important for journalists to keep looking within their means in findings best ways in which they can be effective in delivery of their work when it comes to science reporting. For this reason, it is important for journalists to admit that they cannot achieve perfection all alone. With this said, it will be emphasised that journalists must continuously learn to open up to the learning process. As regularly as possible, journalists must be ready to learn, particularly from scientists from whose field a particular science new borders (Zivkovic, 2010). References Arakawa, S., (2009). “Climatological and dynamical studies on the local strong winds, mainly in Hokkaido Japan” Geophys. Mag., 34, pp. 359–425. Blum, D. and Knudson M (2007). A Field Guide for Science Writers: The Official Guide of the National Association of Science Writers. Oxford University Press: New York. Bush, V. (2005). Science: The Endless Frontier. National Science Foundation: Washington Chase, S. and Schlink F.J. (2007). Your Moneys Worth: A Study in the Waste of the Consumers Dollar.: The Macmillan Co: New York. Dilling, E. (2009). The Red Network; a "Whos Who" and Handbook of Radicalism for Patriots by Elizabeth Dilling. Elizabeth Dilling Chicago. Dorman, C. E., Beardsley R. C., and Limeburner R. (2005). “Winds in the Strait of Gibraltar” Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 121, pp. 1903–1921. Dudo, A. D., Dunwoody, S., & Scheufele, D. A. (2011). "The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in U.S. newspaper coverage of nanotechnology". Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly Vol. 88 No. 5: pp. 55–75. Fischer, D. (2013). "Climate coverage, dominated by weird weather, falls further in 2012". International Business Times. Vol. 322 No. 4, pp. 35-49 Gohm, A., (2003). “Contributions to the dynamics of south foehn: A gap flow study during the Mesoscale Alpine Programme”. Dissertation, University of Innsbruck, 111 pp. Hoinka, K. P. (2010). Gap winds in a fjord. Part I: Observations and numerical simulation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 122, pp. 2645–2665. Hoinka, K. P., (2005). “Observation of the airflow over the Alps during a foehn event.” Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 111, pp. 199–224. Jackson, P. L. and Steyn D. G. (2004). Gap winds in a fjord. Part II: Hydraulic analog. Mon. Wea. Rev., 122, pp. 2666–2676. Knight, O. (2006). I Protest: Selected Disquisitions of E.W. Scripps.: The University of Wisconsin Press: Madison. Kopka, H. and Daly P. W. (2009). A Guide to LATEX. 3d ed., Addison-Wesley: London McCabe, C. R. (2011). Damned Old Crank: A Self-Portrait of E.W. Scripps Drawn from his Unpublished Writings. Harper & Brothers: New York. Mitchell, M. (2012). Maria Mitchell, Life, Letters, and Journals. Forgotten Books: Charleston National Research Council (2011). “Bulletin of the National Research Council”. The National Research Council of The National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 1919-1921. Pan, F. and Smith R. B. (2009). Gap winds and wakes: SAR observations and numerical simulations. J. Atmos. Sci., 56, pp. 905–923. Pettre, P., (2012). On the problem of violent valley winds. J. Atmos. Sci., 39, pp. 542–554. Russey, W. E., Ebel H. F., and Bliefert C. (2006). How to Write a Successful Science Thesis: The Concise Guide for Students. Wiley-VHC: New York Schar, C. and Smith R. B. (2013). Shallow-water flow past isolated topography. Part I: Vorticity production and wake formation. J. Atmos. Sci., 50, pp. 373–1400. Schar, C. and Smith R. B. (2014). Shallow-water flow past isolated topography. Part II: Transition to vortex shedding. J. Atmos. Sci., 50, pp. 1401–1412. Science Service et al. (2003). Science from Shipboard. Science: Washington, DC Scopes, J. T. and Presley J. (2007). Center of the Storm: Memoirs of John T. Scopes. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston: New York. Scorer, R. S., (2002). Mountain-gap winds; a study of surface wind at Gibraltar. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 78, pp. 53–61. Slosson, E. E. (2010). Great American Universities. MacMillan: New York Slosson, E. E. (2014). Major Prophets of Today. Little, Brown, and Co: Boston. Winslow T. F. (2011). The Principles of Scientific Management.: Harper & Bros: New York. Zara, C. (2013). "Remember Newspaper Science Sections? They’re Almost All Gone". International Business Times. Vol. 322 No. 4, pp. 45-49 Zivkovic, B (2010)."The Line Between Science and Journalism is Getting Blurry Again", Science Progress, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 53-83 Read More